My husband was hit by a car this morning on his way to catch the bus. He has a fractured wrist and tibia. He said he had the light. I don’t doubt this as he rarely jaywalks. One of my best friend IRL is a lawyer. She thinks we should sue the guy who did it.
Would you?
My husband doesn’t want to sue. He says he just feels grateful to be alive. I admit I don’t really want to sue. I want to find this guy and cut him up into tiny little pieces. Then I want to set the pieces on fire.
I can’t do that so I’d settle for suing. My friend the lawyer thinks we could get 50k. He broke my husband’s bones. I don’t think he should walk away from the experience with nothing but a few dents on his car.
I would demand certain compensation, but nothing major (certainly NOT 50k). So long as my medical expenses were covered (granted most of that would be done by insurance, but the deductable should come out of the driver’s pocket) plus any money I might lose from not working for however many days. Plus a little extra compensation for all the order-in pizza and chinese and whatever I’m going to need Than I’d be fine.
I would have to feel that whatever happened to me was malicious in intent before I would sue. If someone hit me and broke a few bones but they were apologetic and they or their insurance covered my medical bills I would have no qualms. If they ran me over and flipped me off as they fled the scene I would feel that would be a good situation in which to go to court.
I think most people are too quick to sue others in hopes of getting rich for no effort and this makes me sad for our nation. Part of the reason insurance is so expensive is because of the kind of people who slip on an icy sidewalk and then sue the homeowner for 5 million dollars and part of the reason medical care is so expensive is because of people who sue doctors for millions for even the tiniest mistakes. I say that if you feel like this is being handled amicably without involving the courts try to keep it out of the legal system.
I’d sue if it was the guy’s fault. Why should you have to bear the costs?
I would imagine the insurance company will ask you to sue if the medical bills are high enough, since otherwise they’re out the money. In that case, they’d probably provide the lawyer.
Or, if they have a right of subrogation (not sure if that happens with health insurance), they’ll just do it themselves.
I wouldn’t take the guy to the cleaner’s for what may have been anything from an honest mistake to gross negligence to having the light and not seeing someone running to cross. A lot of information is missing.
I’d have his insurance pay for any medical bills. I’d probably ask for compensation for missed time at work, as well. Beyond that… I don’t see much reason to sue beyond “teaching him a financial lesson!” I’d talk to the insurance company first and see where that’s going. If they’re not going to pay out for his medical bills and time out of work, then I’d probably sue them.
He says he had the light. I completely believe him.
The police say this was an accident on the part of the driver. They wanted to get a statement from my husband but he at first they were too concerned about getting him to the emergency room then he was too doped up on percoset to be very coherent for much of the afternoon.
My friend the lawyer says the principle is that the pedestrian’s always right.
A big chunk of the problem is that I live in a NJ surburban town on the way to somewhere else. In the morning we get complete schmucks in the middle of their commute and not always particularly well behaved about it. The commuters really are some of the biggest assholes I’ve ever seen. They speed down my side street. They ignore lights and stop signs. They blare rap music at six a.m, make u turns onto my driveway, honk whenever the mood suits them. I’ve even seen a few try to get around my daughter’s school bus.
In the past seven years that I’ve lived here I’ve almost been hit at least half a dozen times. When my daughter was very small her baby carriage didn’t even do the trick. The last time was a few months ago when some bitch behind her massive SUV on her goddamned cell phone came within half an inch of me and my daughter as we were crossing the street to the goddamned library.
So I can damned well believe that SOB behind the wheel was in wrong. My neighbors (who are just as irked by much of this behavior) also believe we should sue.
A principle that I absolutely can not get behind. There are plenty of intersections near my house where I could hide out and wait for an approaching car, and jump into the road before they could react – if I wanted to risk injury for a potentially huge payout. And because the ‘pedestrian’s always right,’ I could hit the jackpot. But that wouldn’t make it right.
I apologize for reading into your post too much, but the rest of it makes it sound like you’re just pissed off at the traffic in your area in general, and you might be looking to “stick it to them” by suing this guy for all he’s got. After all, that’ll teach him, and the rest of those crazy drivers, right?
If that’s the brunt of the motivation, then no, I can’t get behind suing.
Or if, as in your OP, the idea is to sue him because you’re mad that he broke your husband’s bones, then no, I can’t get behind suing, either.
If it were a malicious act meant by the driver to smash me into pieces, then yeah, I’d probably sue him for more than medical bills and missed time. In almost any other situation though, it’s an accident. They happen. And if I made one (god forbid), and accidently hit a pedestrian, I’d certainly hope that they wouldn’t sue the pants off of me, either.
Just think of how much this guy’s insurance is going to go up, assuming they just don’t drop him. That would be revenge enough for me.
If you can get a satisfactory settlement, all the better. No need to sue.
But if you can’t, I wouldn’t avoid suing out of some misplaced notion that you don’t want to be part of litigation run amok. Whatever you think of the broader state of the US legal system, suing (or threatening to sue) a negligent driver to recover from the costs he has imposed on you is exactly what the legal system should be doing.
It isn’t lawsuits that drive up car insurance costs, it is negligent drivers. Not making negligent drivers responsible for their actions helps no one.
I mostly agree with this. I personally would only sue if my treatment was long enough that the statute of limitations needed protected or if I wasn’t able to negotiate a settlement with the insurance company that was satisfactory. Suing just to sue or hiring a laywer ‘just because’ is not my style.
Has anyone suggested that her husband shouldn’t be able to recover actual losses from the driver? The OP’s friend said she could probably get $50,000. I’m no MD, but I’ve had a few fractures, and my guess (absent some realistic cite otherwise) is that a fractured wrist and tibia won’t approach $50k. If it does, then I have no problem recovering the actual cost of treatment. But if the cost is much less, I’m not sure why you’d sue just because you can get $50k.
If he’s actually injured, which you say he is, of course you should sue to be made whole financially for any medical expenses you incur (plus the possibility of future expenses/losses as a direct result of the injury). Although let the record state I’m loathe to the attitude of suing just for the sake of suing (“somebody did something wrong! CHA-CHING!!!”), which is not what the courts are intended for.
If the medical bills are handled by your insurance or the other guy offers to pay, then you might not want to sue. However, if your husband will miss work or lose income, you probably should. The driver is probably insured, or your UIM will cover it. That’s what insurance is for, so you don’t bear the expenses of an accident. Having suffered a broken tibia two years ago, I can tell you, it’s no walk in the park. You’re entitled to be compensated for the “pain and suffering too.”
So, short answer, it’s up to you. You’re certainly entitled to, and you’d probably get some modest compensation. Lawsuits are not generally pleasant, however, and you might wish to concentrate your energy on more enjoyable pursuits.
Talk to your lawyer friend about the pros and cons, and do what feels right.
I have no doubt that he was one of the morning them – the them that many people around here curse and beg to the police to get to act like civilized people instead of dangerous, careless, arrogant twits.
However, that aside, I firmly believe that when you break something you have an obligation to pay for it even if the damage was an accident.
We are lucky in the sense that our medical insurance will cover most costs. But my husband’s going to have to dig into his accumulated sick time very heavily. I have to take time unpaid time off to drive him to doctor’s visits so there’s another cost.
He’s been in agony off and on all day. I’m not so sure I want to think about that particular cost.
I also just don’t think someone who did something like this (and I’m sure my husband’s telling me the truth when he says he had the light and the driver did not) should get to walk away with nothing but an apology.
The thoughts in this thread have been most instructive. I am going to carefully consider our options.
All one can sue for in a case like this is actual damages. And the normal word for actual damages is…costs.
And it is easy to see how the costs could approach 50k (which I’m sure is just a totally WAG of an estimate). Was he transported in an ambulance? What was the cost of the ER care? The percocet? Will he need to undergo any physical therapy? What are the psychological costs of being struck by a car? Will he miss any work? What are the long-term costs of being out from work? Don’t forget that we’re talking about the total costs, not just the deductibles.
Perhaps what you’re suggesting is that the actual money spent is all well and good, but something like pain and suffering shouldn’t count? If so, then why? Why is pain caused any less of a cost than the price of a bandage?
There is a difference between an accident and an act of negligence. When an accident happens, the costs, including suffering, will fall where they may. But when someone could have avoided that accident by using a reasonable amount of care, then the costs shouldn’t just fall where they may. They should be born by the one who had the power to easily avoid the accident.
Are there any local laws regarding automatic compensation?
In Spain, the insurance for an insured driver would cover “third party damages” (ie any damages the person hit suffers which won’t be covered by social security) to an extent - for example they’ll cover loss of business and having a relative stay in a cheap hotel or a BnB while you’re in the hospital but they won’t cover a five-star hotel unless you can prove no other accomodations were available in the area; it’s possible to go to a civil suit for more. If the driver was uninsured, then it becomes a criminal suit involving such charges as “driving without insurance,” “reckless driving with the result of bodily injuries” and suchlike (and the person who was damaged gets his comp from the trial, can go to a civil trial against the government and the driver for more).
And I agree with you. When you break something, you have an obligation to pay for it, even if the damage was an accident. I don’t think anyone has suggested thus far that this guy should be able to walk away with nothing but an apology. Like I said, it should be up to him and his insurance to cover the medical bills. And again, you should definitely press for payment to cover your husband’s missed time from work, and your own. Those two things would be what I’d be going for, and what I’d have absolutely no problem taking ownership for, were I the driver.
Beyond that, though, I’m a hard sell anytime someone mentions payment for “pain and suffering.” I’d never seek payment for that in a lawsuit, myself, because I could never put a price on that. Nor do I think it would be fair to hit the driver up for pain and suffering when it wasn’t malicious. Fixing what he broke, yes, absolutely. But money won’t fix my pain and suffering, so personally, I’d have a hard time feeling it owed to me.
But hey, you’re legally entitled to seek it. I’d just keep in mind a few things when going for more than the cost to ‘fix what he broke’:
[ul]
[li]What do you think your obligation would be, if the situation were reversed, and you made an honest to god mistake?[/li][li]Doing something “to teach him a lesson via his wallet” isn’t necessarily the right thing to do.[/li][li]Suing for money probably isn’t the best way to send a message to him, or other drivers, that this kind of driving behavior won’t be tolerated.[/li][li]His insurance costs for the next few years ARE going to hit him harder in the pocket than your lawsuit MIGHT. I may be alone here, but that to me would be justice enough.[/li][/ul]
And if I may add, I hope you don’t think I’m judging you or telling you what to do or giving you legal advice or anything like that. I definitely understand how you feel and would be pretty angry, myself. You asked for outside opinions, though, and I’ve got a little more than 2 cents tonight, for some reason.
All my best to you and your husband. I wish him the speediest of recoveries!
yeesh, that’s pretty bad. I live in Japan, in what is considered one of the worst prefectures for drivers (I’ve literally seen people drive 100 meters on a sidewalk to make it into a parking lot before) and even all stereotypes aside, Japanese people are some of the worst drivers I’ve ever seen. I’ve stared in horror, on SEVERAL occassions, as I watched someone make a left turn (equivalent of a right turn in america) while look right, not paying attention at all to pedestrians (usually little school children, no less) or me on my bike.
I’ve lived here 11 months, had COUNTLESS near misses (within inches, where I actually think I’m going to be sprawled over a hood) and I’ve been actually hit twice, luckily never more than a bruise or so. Nothing so bad as them coming near hitting my kid, though (I don’t have a kid, but I can only imagine).
Anyway, bottom line is if you feel you’re getting screwed out of compensation that sue, but don’t sue just because you can. If the guy’s willing to settle out of court for medical expenses plus the unpaid time YOU will have to take off work to take care of your husband, than I personally wouldn’t sue. Then again, such a thing has never happened to me, so I can’t really put myself in your shoes.
No. You’re all wound up and want vengeance. Even though your husband is the one that got broken, by your description he is handling it much better than you are. You’re trying to punish all the people that drive by your house every day. It’s not going to help, and you’re just going to be more bitter when they keep doing it, regardless of the outcome.
Than I’d be fine.